In a recent event at the Stanford Law School, a bastion of freedom of speech was turned into a yelling contest. Their about page states, “We are known for our collegial culture, intimate and egalitarian. In this close-knit community, collaboration and the open exchange of ideas are essential to life and learning. Students, faculty, staff, and alumni — all support and inspire each other to explore, excel and contribute to the world through law. This goal was sadly shown to be lacking at the lecture by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan.
That power was on ugly display last week at Stanford Law School, where a mob of law students shouted down Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan in a spectacle unfit for any institution of higher learning. (Judge Duncan relates his experience nearby)
As the room grew unruly, Judge Duncan asked that a college official step in. The law school’s associate dean for DEI, Tirien Steinbach, took the podium. “I and many people in this Administration do absolutely believe in free speech,” the dean said, but then went on to ask if “the juice is worth the squeeze”—that is, whether tolerating free speech is worth the pain it causes.
Ms. Steinbach characterized the judge’s speech as something “that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people.” And she lectured Judge Duncan: “Do you have something so incredible and important to say about Twitter, Guns, and Covid that it is worth the division of these people?” Was Ms Steinbach asking Judge Duncan or was she asking why her statements were dividing the room? In an atmosphere of collegiality and equanimity, there should be no division when and if searching for truth. Was Ms. Steinbach attempting to gain favor with the students to show she was on their side? That statement led to considerable confusion for writers who analyzed the event.
Adding to the heat in the room; Her remarks were not off the cuff. Ms. Steinbach had riled up protesters before the event with an email alerting them that “Numerous senators, advocacy groups, think tanks, and judicial accountability groups” opposed Judge Duncan’s nomination because of his legal advocacy “regarding marriage equality and transgender, voting, reproductive, and immigrants’ rights.”
The federal judge has caused “upset and outrage,” she continued, and has “repeatedly and proudly threatened healthcare and basic rights for marginalized communities, including LGBTQ+ people . . . prisoners, Black voters, and women.”
Stanford’s president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, and Stanford Law Dean Jenny Martinez later apologized to the judge. But on Monday students lined the halls to protest Ms. Martinez for apologizing. No one expects Ms. Steinbach will face discipline for her role in the fiasco, and the school is still offering her further involvement to help with university healing.
The dean of students emailed the Federalist Society students who had invited Judge Duncan to offer support and counseling—including Dean Steinbach. The email also encouraged them to “consider pausing their student organization social media accounts until this news cycle winds down” and “try your best not to engage on Twitter.” In other words, respond to an attempt to stifle your speech by stifling your speech. All of the aforementioned comments may have been mere to stimulate thought processes rather than a minor riot
The Stanford blowup shows how the culture of DEI, and especially its accumulation of power in the bureaucracy, has become a threat to free speech. Students who gather to jeer disfavored speakers and intimidate and harass fellow students use the authority of DEI offices to sanction their behavior. Rather than promoting diversity, DEI officers enforce ideological conformity.The Tyranny of the DEI Bureaucracy
Diversity, equity, and inclusion offices become weapons to intimidate and limit speech. Just how far has this come? Jay Greene of the Heritage Foundation reports that the average major university now has 45 DEI personnel. The University of Michigan has 163 DEI officers. Ohio State and the University of Virginia each have 94. Georgia Tech has 41 DEI personnel but only 13 history professors.
The agenda has become clear. Even faculty administrators have been intimidated and brainwashed into submission and political correctness rather than teaching basic analysis. the tyranny of DEI has spread across far too many American institutions. The DEI movement may have started with good intentions, but across government, education, and American business its functionaries have too often become ideological enforcers.
DEI officials have a vested interest in ensuring that the grievances of identity politics continue lest the offices have no reason to exist. As the Stanford experience shows, they promote racial division rather than redress it, and institutions need to rethink their value.
THE TYRANNY OF DIVERSITY